Anthropic’s Pentagon dispute and military AI governance in 2026

On 28 February 2026, Anthropic’s Claude rose to No. 1 in Apple’s US App Store free rankings, overtaking OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The surge came shortly after OpenAI announced a partnership with the US Department of Defense (DoD), making its technology available to the US Army. The development prompted discussion among users and observers about whether concerns over military partnerships were influencing the shift to alternative AI tools.

Mere hours before the USD $200 million OpenAI-DoD deal was finalised, Anthropic was informed that its potential deal with the Pentagon had fallen through, largely because the AI company refused to relinquish total control of its technology for domestic mass surveillance. According to reporting, discussions broke down after Anthropic declined to grant the US government unrestricted control over its models, particularly for potential uses related to large-scale surveillance.

Following the breakdown of negotiations, US officials reportedly designated Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk to national security’. The decision effectively limited the company’s participation in certain defence-related projects and highlighted growing tensions between AI developers’ safety policies and government expectations regarding national security technologies.

The debate over military partnerships sparked internal and industry-wide discussion. Caitlin Kalinowski, the former head of AR glasses hardware at Meta and the hardware leader at OpenAI, resigned soon after the US DoD deal, citing ethical concerns about the company’s involvement in military AI applications.

AI has driven recent technological innovation, with companies like Anduril and Palantir collaborating with the US DoD to deploy AI on and off the battlefield. The debate over AI’s role in military operations, surveillance, and security has intensified, especially as Middle East conflicts highlight its potential uses and risks.

Against this backdrop, the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon reflects a wider debate on how AI should be used in security and defence. Governments are increasingly relying on private tech companies to develop the systems that shape modern military capabilities, while those same companies are trying to set limits on how their technologies can be used.

As AI becomes more deeply integrated into security strategies around the world, the challenge may no longer be whether the technology will be used, but how it should be governed. The question is: who should ultimately decide where the limits of military AI lie?

Anthropic’s approach to military AI

Anthropic’s approach is closely tied to its concept of ‘constitutional AI’, a training method that guides how the model behaves by embedding a set of principles directly into its responses. Such principles are intended to reduce harmful outputs and ensure the system avoids unsafe or unethical uses. While such safeguards are intended to improve reliability and trust, they can also limit how the technology can be deployed in more sensitive contexts such as military operations.

Anthropic’s Constitution says its AI assistant should be ‘genuinely helpful’ to people and society, while avoiding unsafe, unethical, or deceptive actions. The document reflects the company’s broader effort to build safeguards into model deployment. In practice, Anthropic has set limits on certain applications of its technology, including uses related to large-scale surveillance or military operations.

Anthropic presents these safeguards as proof of its commitment to responsible AI. Reports indicate that concerns over unrestricted model access led to the breakdown in talks with the US DoD.

At the same time, Anthropic clarifies that its concerns are specific to certain uses of its technology. The company does not generally oppose cooperation with national security institutions. In a statement following the Pentagon’s designation of the company as a ‘supply chain risk to national security’, CEO Dario Amodei said, ‘Anthropic has much more in common with the US DoD than we have differences.’ He added that the company remains committed to ‘advancing US national security and defending the American people.’

The episode, therefore, highlights a nuanced position. Anthropic appears open to defence partnerships but seeks to maintain clearer limits on the deployment of its AI systems. The disagreement with the Pentagon ultimately reflects not a fundamental difference in goals, but rather different views on how far military institutions should be able to control and use advanced AI technologies.

Anthropic’s position illustrates a broader challenge facing governments and tech companies as AI becomes increasingly integrated into national security systems. While military and security institutions are eager to deploy advanced AI tools to support intelligence analysis, logistics, and operational planning, the companies developing these technologies are also seeking to establish safeguards for their use. Anthropic’s willingness to step back from a major defence partnership and challenge the Pentagon’s response underscores how some AI developers are trying to set limits on military uses of their systems.

Defence partnerships that shape the AI industry

While Anthropic has taken a cautious approach to military deployment of AI, other technology companies have pursued closer partnerships with defence institutions. One notable example is Palantir, the US data analytics firm co-founded by Peter Thiel that has longstanding relationships with numerous government agencies. Documents leaked in 2013 suggested that the company had contracts with at least 12 US government bodies. More recently, Palantir has expanded its defence offering through its Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP), designed to support intelligence analysis and operational decision-making for military and security institutions.

Another prominent player is Anduril Industries, a US defence technology company focused on developing AI-enabled defence systems. The firm produces autonomous and semi-autonomous technologies, including unmanned aerial systems and surveillance platforms, which it supplies to the US DoD.

Shield AI, meanwhile, is developing autonomous flight software designed to operate in environments where GPS and communications may be unavailable. Its Hivemind AI platform powers drones that can navigate buildings and complex environments without human control. The company has worked with the US military to test these systems in training exercises and operational scenarios, including aircraft autonomy projects aimed at supporting fighter pilots.

The aforementioned partnerships illustrate how the US government has increasingly embraced AI as a key pillar of national defence and future military operations. In many cases, these technologies are already being used in operational contexts. Palantir’s Gotham and AIP, for instance, have supported US military and intelligence operations by processing satellite imagery, drone footage, and intercepted communications to help analysts identify patterns and potential threats.

Other companies are contributing to defence capabilities through autonomous systems development and hardware integration. Anduril supplies the US DoD with AI-enabled surveillance, drone, and counter-air systems designed to detect and respond to potential threats. At the same time, OpenAI’s technology is increasingly being integrated into national security and defence projects through growing collaboration with US defence institutions.

Such developments show that AI is no longer a supporting tool but a fundamental part of military infrastructure, influencing how defence organisations process information and make decisions. As governments deepen their reliance on private-sector AI, the emerging interplay among innovation, operational effectiveness, and oversight will define the central debate on military AI adoption.

The potential benefits of military AI

The debate over Anthropic’s restrictions on military AI use highlights the reasons governments invest in such technologies: defence institutions are drawn to AI because it processes vast amounts of information much faster than human analysts. Military operations generate massive data streams from satellites, drones, sensors, and communication networks, and AI systems can analyse them in near real time.

In 2017, the US DoD launched Project Maven to apply machine learning to drone and satellite imagery, enabling analysts to identify objects, movements, and potential threats on the battlefield faster than with traditional manual methods.

AI is increasingly used in military logistics and operational planning. It helps commanders anticipate equipment failures, enables predictive maintenance, optimises supply chains, and improves field asset readiness.

Recent conflicts have shown that AI-driven tools can enhance military intelligence and planning. In Ukraine, for example, forces reportedly used software to analyse satellite imagery, drone footage, and battlefield data. Key benefits include more efficient target identification, real-time tracking of troop movements, and clearer battlefield awareness through the integration of multiple data sources.

AI-assisted analysis has been used in intelligence and targeting during the Gaza conflict. Israeli defence systems use AI tools to rapidly process large datasets for surveillance and intelligence operations. The tools help analysts identify potential militant infrastructure, track movements, and prioritise key intelligence, thus speeding up information processing for teams during periods of high operational activity.

More broadly, AI is transforming the way militaries coordinate across land, air, sea, and cyber domains. AI integrates data from diverse sources, equipping commanders to interpret complex operational situations and enabling faster, informed decision-making. The advances reinforce why many governments see AI as essential for future defence planning.

Ethical concerns and Anthropic’s limits on military AI

Despite the operational advantages of military AI, its growing role in national defence systems has raised ethical concerns. Critics warn that overreliance on AI for intelligence analysis, targeting, or operational planning could introduce risks if the systems produce inaccurate outputs or are deployed without sufficient human oversight. Even highly capable models can generate misleading or incomplete information, which in high-stakes military contexts could have serious consequences.

Concerns about the reliability of AI systems are also linked to the quality of the data they learn from. Many models still struggle to distinguish authentic information from synthetic or manipulated content online. As generative AI becomes more widespread, the risk that systems may absorb inaccurate or fabricated data increases, potentially affecting how these tools interpret intelligence or analyse complex operational environments.

Questions about autonomy have also become a major issue in discussions around military AI. As AI systems become increasingly capable of analysing battlefield data and identifying potential targets, debates have emerged over how much decision-making authority they should be given. Many experts argue that decisions involving the use of lethal force should remain under meaningful human control to prevent unintended consequences or misidentification of targets.

Another area of concern relates to the potential expansion of surveillance capabilities. AI systems can analyse satellite imagery, communications data, and online activity at a scale beyond the capacity of human analysts alone. While such tools may help intelligence agencies detect threats more efficiently, critics warn that they could also enable large-scale monitoring if deployed without clear legal and institutional safeguards.

It is within this ethical landscape that Anthropic has attempted to position itself as a more cautious actor in the AI industry. Through initiatives such as Claude’s Constitution and its broader emphasis on AI safety, the company argues that powerful AI systems should include safeguards that limit harmful or unethical uses. Anthropic’s reported refusal to grant the Pentagon unrestricted control over its models during negotiations reflects this approach.

The disagreement between Anthropic and the US DoD therefore highlights a broader tension in the development of military AI. Governments increasingly view AI as a strategic technology capable of strengthening defence and intelligence capabilities, while some developers seek to impose limits on how their systems are deployed. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in national security strategies, the question may no longer be whether these technologies will be used, but who should define the boundaries of their use.

Military AI and the limits of corporate control

Anthropic’s dispute with the Pentagon shows that the debate over military AI is no longer only about technological capability. Questions of speed, efficiency, and battlefield advantage now collide with concerns over surveillance, autonomy, human oversight, and corporate responsibility. Governments increasingly see AI as a strategic asset, while companies such as Anthropic are trying to draw boundaries around how far their systems can go once they enter defence environments.

Contrasting approaches across the industry make the tension even clearer. Palantir, Anduril, Shield AI, and OpenAI have moved closer to defence partnerships, reflecting a broader push to integrate advanced AI into military infrastructure. Anthropic, by comparison, has tried to keep one foot in national security cooperation while resisting uses it views as unsafe or unethical. A divide of that kind suggests that the future of military AI may be shaped as much by company policies as by government strategy.

The growing reliance on private firms to build national security technologies has made governance harder to define. Military institutions want flexibility, scale, and operational control, while AI developers increasingly face pressure to decide whether they are simply suppliers or active gatekeepers of how their models are deployed. Anthropic’s position does not outright defence cooperation, but it does expose how fragile the relationship becomes when state priorities and corporate safeguards no longer align.

Military AI will continue to expand, whether through intelligence analysis, logistics, surveillance, or autonomous systems. Governance, however, remains the unresolved issue at the centre of that expansion. As AI becomes more deeply embedded in defence policy and military planning, should governments alone decide how far these systems can go, or should companies like Anthropic retain the power to set limits on their use?

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI ethics as societal infrastructure in the digital era

In recent days, social media has been alight with discussions about the 2014 series whose portrayal of AI and ethical dilemmas now feels remarkably prophetic: Silicon Valley. Fans and professionals alike are highlighting how the show’s depiction of AI, automated agents, and ethical dilemmas mirrors today’s real-world challenges. 

From algorithmic decision-making to AI shaping social and economic interactions, the series explores the boundaries, responsibilities, and societal impact of AI in ways that feel startlingly relevant. What once seemed like pure comedy is increasingly being seen as a warning, highlighting how the choices we make around AI and its ethical frameworks will shape whether the technology benefits society.

While the show dramatises these dilemmas for entertainment, the real world is now facing the same questions. Recent trends in generative AI, autonomous agents, and large-scale automated decision-making are bringing their predictions to life, raising urgent ethical questions for developers, policymakers, and society alike.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

The rise of AI ethics: from niche concern to central requirement

The growing influence of AI on society has propelled ethics from a theoretical discussion to a central factor in technological decision-making. Initially confined to academic debate, ethics in AI is now a guiding force in technological development. The impact of AI is becoming tangible across society, from employment and finance to online content.

Technical performance alone no longer defines success; the consequences of design choices have become morally and socially significant. Governments, international organisations, and corporations are responding by developing ethical frameworks. 

The EU AI Act, the OECD AI Principles, and numerous corporate codes of conduct signal that society expects AI systems to align with human values, demonstrating accountability, fairness, and trustworthiness. Ethical reflection has become a prerequisite for technological legitimacy and societal acceptance.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

Functions of AI ethics: trust, guidance, and societal risk

Ethical frameworks for AI fulfil multiple roles, balancing moral guidance with practical necessity. They build public trust between developers, organisations, and users, reassuring society that AI systems operate consistently with shared values.

For developers, ethical principles offer a blueprint for decision-making, helping anticipate societal impact and minimise unintended harm. Beyond guidance, AI ethics acts as a form of societal risk governance, allowing organisations to identify potential consequences before they manifest. 

By integrating ethics into design, AI systems become socially sustainable technologies, bridging technical capability with moral responsibility. The approach like this is particularly critical in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, finance, and law, where algorithmic decisions can significantly affect human well-being.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

The politics of AI ethics: regulatory theatre and corporate influence

Despite widespread adoption, AI ethics frameworks sometimes risk becoming regulatory theatre, where public statements signal commitment but fail to ensure meaningful action. Many organisations promote ethical AI principles, yet consistent enforcement and follow-through often lag behind these claims.

Even with their limitations, ethical frameworks are far from meaningless. They shape public discourse, influence policy, and determine which AI systems gain social legitimacy. The challenge lies in balancing credibility with practical impact, ensuring that ethical commitments are more than symbolic gestures. 

Social media platforms like X amplify this tension, with public scrutiny and viral debates exposing both successes and failures in applying ethical principles.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

AI ethics as a lens for technology and society

The prominence of AI ethics reflects a broader societal transformation in evaluating technology. Modern societies no longer judge AI solely by efficiency, speed, or performance; they assess social consequences, fairness, and the distribution of risks and benefits. 

AI is increasingly seen as a social actor rather than a neutral tool, influencing public behaviour, shaping social norms, and redefining concepts such as trust, autonomy, and accountability. Ethical evaluation of AI is not just a philosophical exercise, but demonstrate evolving expectations about the role technology should play in human life.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

AI ethics as early-warning governance for social impact

AI ethics functions as a critical early-warning system for society. Ethical principles anticipate harms that might otherwise go unnoticed, from systemic bias to privacy violations. By highlighting potential consequences, ethics enables organisations to act proactively, reducing the likelihood of crises and improving public trust. 

Moreover, ethics ensures that long-term impacts, including societal cohesion, equity, and fairness, are considered alongside immediate technical performance. In doing so, AI ethics bridges the gap between what AI can do and what society deems acceptable, ensuring that innovation remains aligned with moral and social norms.

Balancing technological progress with societal values is essential, as intelligent technologies must align with society, guided by AI ethics.
Source: Freepik

The bridge between technological power and social legitimacy

AI ethics remains the essential bridge between technological power and social legitimacy. Embedding ethical reflection into AI development ensures that innovation is not only technically effective but also socially sustainable, trustworthy, and accountable. 

Yet a growing tension defines the next phase of this evolution: the accelerating pace of innovation often outstrips the slower processes of ethical deliberation and regulation, raising questions about who sets the norms and how quickly societies can adapt.

Rather than acting solely as a safeguard, ethics is increasingly becoming a strategic dimension of technological leadership, shaping public trust, market adoption, and even geopolitical influence in the global race for AI. The rise of AI ethics, therefore, signals more than a moral awakening, reflecting a structural shift in how technological progress is evaluated and legitimised.

As AI continues to integrate into everyday life, ethical frameworks will determine not only how systems function, but also whether they are accepted as part of the social fabric. Aligning innovation with societal values is no longer optional but the condition under which AI can sustain legitimacy, unlock its full potential, and remain a transformative force that benefits society as a whole.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

AI slop’s meteoric rise and the impact of synthetic content in 2026

In December 2025, the Macquarie Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the American Dialect Society named ‘slop’ as the Word of the Year, reflecting a widespread reaction to AI-generated content online, often referred to as ‘AI slop.’ By choosing ‘slop’, typically associated with unappetising animal feed, they captured unease about the digital clutter created by AI tools.

As LLMs and AI tools became accessible to more people, many saw them as opportunities for profit through the creation of artificial content for marketing or entertainment, or through the manipulation of social media algorithms. However, despite video and image generation advances, there is a growing gap between perceived quality and actual detection: many overestimate how easily AI content evades notice, fueling scepticism about its online value.

As generative AI systems expand, the debate goes beyond digital clutter to deeper concerns about trust, market incentives, and regulatory resilience. How will societies manage the social, economic, and governance impacts of an information ecosystem increasingly shaped by automated abundance? In simplified terms, is AI slop more than a simple digital nuisance, or do we needlessly worry about a transient vogue that will eventually fade away?

The social aspect of AI slop’s influence

The most visible effects of AI slop emerge on large social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Users frequently encounter AI-generated images and videos that appropriate celebrity likenesses without consent, depict fabricated events, or present sensational and misleading scenarios. Comment sections often become informal verification spaces, where some users identify visual inconsistencies and warn others, while many remain uncertain about the content’s authenticity.

However, no platform has suffered the AI slop effect as much as Facebook, and once you take a glance at its demographics, the pieces start to come together. According to multiple studies, Facebook’s user base is mostly populated by adults aged 25-34, but users over the age of 55 make up nearly 24 percent of all users. While seniors do not constitute the majority (yet), younger generations have been steadily migrating to social platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X, leaving the most popular platform to the whims of the older generation.

Due to factors such as cognitive decline, positivity bias, or digital (il)literacy, older social media users are more likely to fall for scams and fraud. Such conditions make Facebook an ideal place for spreading low-quality AI slop and false information. Scammers use AI tools to create fake images and videos about made-up crises to raise money for causes that are not real.

The lack of regulation on Meta’s side is the most glaring sore spot, evidenced by the company pushing back against the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), viewing them as ‘overreaching‘ and stifling innovation. The math is simple: content generates engagement, resulting in more revenue for Facebook and other platforms owned by Meta. Whether that content is authentic and high-quality or low-effort AI slop, the numbers don’t care.

The economics behind AI slop

At its core, AI content is not just a social media phenomenon, but an economic one as well. GenAI tools drastically reduce the cost and time required to produce all types of content, and when production approaches zero marginal cost, the incentive to churn out AI slop seems too good to ignore. Even minimal engagement can generate positive returns through advertising, affiliate marketing, or platform monetisation schemes.

AI content production goes beyond exploiting social media algorithms and monetisation policies. SEO can now be automated at scale, thus generating thousands of keyword-optimised articles within hours. Affiliate link farming allows creators to monetise their products or product recommendations with minimal editorial input.

On video platforms like TikTok and YouTube, synthetic voice-overs and AI-generated visuals are on full display, banking on trending topics and using AI-generated thumbnails to garner more views on a whim. Thanks to AI tools, content creators can post relevant AI-generated content in minutes, enabling them to jump on the hottest topics and drive clicks faster than with any other authentic content creation method.

To add salt to the wound, YouTube content creators share the sentiment that they are victims of the platform’s double standards in enforcing its strict community guidelines. Even the largest YouTube Channels are often flagged for a plethora of breaches, including copyright claims and depictions of dangerous or illegal activities, and harmful speech, to name a few. On the other hand, AI slop videos seem to fly under YouTube’s radar, leading to more resentment towards AI-generated content.

Businesses that rely on generative AI tools to market their services online are also finding AI to be the way to go, as most users are still not too keen on distinguishing authentic content, nor do they give much importance to those aspects. Instead of paying voice-over artists and illustrators, it is way cheaper to simply create a desired post in under a few minutes, adding fuel to an already raging fire. Some might call it AI slop, but again, the numbers are what truly matter.

The regulatory challenge of AI slop

AI slop is not only a social and economic issue, but also a regulatory one. The problem is not a single AI-generated post that promotes harmful behaviour or misleading information, but the sheer scale of synthetic content entering digital platforms. When large volumes of low-value or deceptive material circulate on the web, they can distort information ecosystems and make moderation a tough challenge. Such a predicament shifts the focus from individual violations to broader systemic effects.

In the EU, the DSA requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate the systemic risks linked to their services. While the DSA does not specifically target AI slop, its provisions on transparency, content recommendation algorithms, and risk mitigation could apply if AI content significantly affects public discourse or enables fraud. The challenge lies in defining when content volume prevails over quality control, becoming a systemic issue rather than isolated misuse.

Debates around labelling AI slop and transparency also play a large role. Policymakers and platforms have explored ways to flag AI-generated content throughout disclosures or watermarking. For example, OpenAI’s Sora generates videos with a faint Sora watermark, although it is hardly visible to an uninitiated user. Nevertheless, labelling alone may not address deeper concerns if recommendation systems continue to prioritise engagement above all else, with the issue not only being whether users know the content is AI-generated, but how such content is ranked, amplified, and monetised.

More broadly, AI slop highlights the limits of traditional content moderation. As generative tools make production faster and cheaper, enforcement systems may struggle to keep pace. Regulation, therefore, faces a structural question: can existing digital governance frameworks preserve information quality in an environment where automated content production continues to grow?

Building resilience in the era of AI slop

Humans are considered the most adaptable species on Earth, and for good reason. While AI slop has exposed weaknesses in platform design, monetisation models, and moderation systems, it may also serve as a catalyst for adaptation. Unless regulatory bodies unite under one banner and agree to ban AI content for good, it is safe to say that synthetic content is here to stay. However, sooner or later, systemic regulations will evolve to address this new AI craze and mitigate its negative effects.

The AI slop bubble is bound to burst at some point, as online users will come to favour meticulously crafted content – whether authentic or artificial over low-quality content. Consequently, incentives may also evolve along with content saturation, leading to a greater focus on quality rather than quantity. Advertisers and brands often prioritise credibility and brand safety, which could encourage platforms to refine their ranking systems to reward originality, reliability, and verified creators.

Transparency requirements, systemic risk assessments, and discussions around provenance disclosure mechanisms imply that governance is responding to the realities of generative AI. Instead of marking the deterioration of digital spaces, AI slop may represent a transitional phase in which platforms, policymakers, and users are challenged to adjust their expectations and norms accordingly.

Finally, the long-term outcome will depend entirely on whether innovation, market incentives, and governance structures can converge around information quality and resilience. In that sense, AI slop may ultimately function less as a permanent state of affairs and more as a stress test to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the upcoming struggle between user experience and generative AI tools, the former will have the final say, which is an encouraging thought.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

The European marathon towards digital sovereignty

Derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’, through the French word ‘souveraineté’, sovereignty can be understood as: ‘the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order’ – Britannica. Digital sovereignty, specifically European digital sovereignty, refers to ‘Europe’s ability to act independently in the digital world’.

In 2020, the European Parliament already identified the consequences of reliance on non-EU technologies. From the economic and social influence of non-EU technology companies, which can undermine user control over their personal data, to the slow growth of the EU technology companies and a limitation on the enforcement of European laws.

Today, these concerns persist. From Romanian election interference on TikTok’s platform, Microsoft’s interference with the ICC, to the Dutch government authentication platform being acquired by a US firm, and booming American and Chinese LLMs compared to European LLMs. The EU is at a crossroads between international reliance and homegrown adoption.

The issue of the EU digital sovereignty has gained momentum in the context of recent and significant shifts in US foreign policy toward its allies. In this environment, the pursuit of the EU digital sovereignty appears as a justified and proportionate response, one that might previously have been perceived as unnecessarily confrontational.

In light of this, this analysis’s main points will discuss the rationale behind the EU digital sovereignty (including dependency, innovation and effective compliance), recent European-centric technological and platform shifts, the steps the EU is taking to successfully be digitally sovereign and finally, examples of European alternatives

Rationale behind the move

The reasons for digital sovereignty can be summed up in three main areas: (I) less dependency on non-EU tech, (ii) leading and innovating technological solutions, and (iii) ensuring better enforcement and subsequent adherence to data protection laws/fundamental rights.

(i) Less dependency: Global geopolitical tensions between US-China/Russia push Europe towards developing its own digital capabilities and secure its supply chains. Insecure supply chain makes Europe vulnerable to failing energy grids.

More recently, US giant Microsoft threatened the International legal order by revoking US-sanctioned International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s Microsoft software access, preventing the Chief Prosecutor from working on his duties at the ICC. In light of these scenarios, Europeans are turning to developing more European-based solutions to reduce upstream dependencies.

(ii) Leaders & innovators: A common argument is that Americans innovate, the Chinese copy, and the Europeans regulate. If the EU aims to be a digital geopolitical player, it must position itself to be a regulator which promotes innovation. It can achieve this by upskilling its workforce of non-digital trades into digital ones to transform its workforce, have more EU digital infrastructure (data centres, cloud storage and management software), further increase innovation spending and create laws that truly allow for the uptake of EU technological development instead of relying on alternative, cheaper non-EU options.

(iii) Effective compliance: Knowing that fines are more difficult to enforce towards non-EU companies than the EU companies (ex., Clearview AI), EU-based technological organisations would allow for corrective measures, warnings, and fines to be enforced more effectively. Thus, enabling more adherence towards the EU’s digital agenda and respect for fundamental rights.

Can the EU achieve Digital Sovereignty?

The main speed bumps towards the EU digital sovereignty are: i) a lack of digital infrastructure (cloud storage & data centres), ii) (critical) raw material dependency and iii) Legislative initiatives to facilitate the path towards digital sovereignty (innovation procurement and fragmented compliance regime).

i) lack of digital infrastructure: In order for the EU to become digitally sovereign it must have its own sovereign digital infrastructure.

In practice, the EU relies heavily on American data centre providers (i.e. Equinix, Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services) hosted in the EU. In this case, even though the data is European and hosted in the EU, the company that hosts it is non-European. This poses reliance and legislative challenges, such as ensuring adequate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data when it is in transit to the US. Given the EU-US DPF, there is a legal basis for transferring EU personal data to the US.

However, if the DPF were to be struck down (perhaps due to the US’ Cloud Act), as it has been in the past (twice with Schrems I and Schrems II) and potentially Schrems III, there would no longer be a legal basis for the transfer of the EU personal data to a US data centre.

Previously, the EU’s 2022 Directive on critical entities resilience allowed for the EU countries to identify critical infrastructure and subsequently ensure they take the technical, security and organisational measures to assure their resilience. Part of this Directive covers digital infrastructure, including providers of cloud computing services and providers of data centres. From this, the EU has recently developed guidelines for member states to identify critical entities. However, these guidelines do not anticipate how to achieve resilience and leave this responsibility with member states.

Currently, the EU is revising legislation to strengthen its control over critical digital infrastructure. Reports state revisions of existing legislation (Chips Act and Quantum Act) as well as new legislation (Digital Networks Act, the Cloud and AI Development Act) are underway.

ii) Raw material dependency: The EU cannot be digitally sovereign until it reduces some of its dependencies on other countries’ raw materials to build the hardware necessary to be technologically sovereign. In 2025, the EU’s goals were to create a new roadmap towards critical raw material (CRM) sovereignty to rely on its own energy sources and build infrastructure.

Thus, the RESourceEU Action Plan was born in December 2025. This plan contains 6 pillars: securing supply through knowledge, accelerating and promoting projects, using the circular economy and fostering innovation (recycling products which contain CRMs), increasing European demand for European projects (stockpiling CRMs), protecting the single market and partnering with third countries for long-lasting diversification. Practically speaking, part of this plan is to match Europe and or global raw material supply with European demand for European projects.

iii) Legislative initiatives to facilitate the path towards digital sovereignty:

Tackling difficult innovation procurement: the argument is to facilitate its uptake of innovation procurement across the EU. In 2026, the EU is set to reform its public procurement framework for innovation. The Innovation Procurement Update (IPU) team has representatives from over 33 countries (predominantly through law firms, Bird & Bird being the most represented), which recommends that innovation procurement reach 20% of all public procurement.

Another recommendation would help more costly innovative solutions to be awarded procurement projects, which in the past were awarded to cheaper procurement bids. In practice, the lowest price of a public procurement bid is preferred, and if it meets the remaining procurement conditions, it wins the bid – but de-prioritising this non-pricing criterion would enable companies with more costly innovative solutions to win public procurement bids.

Alleviating compliance challenges: lowering other compliance burdens whilst maintaining the digital aquis: recently announced at the World Economic Forum by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU.inc would help cross-border business operations scaling up by alleviating company, corporate, insolvency, labour and taxation law compliance burdens. By harmonising these into a single framework, businesses can more easily grow and deploy cross-border solutions that would otherwise face hurdles.

Power through data: another legislative measure to help facilitate the path towards the EU digital sovereignty is unlocking the potential behind European data. In order to research innovative solutions, data is required. This can be achieved through personal or non-personal data. The EU’s GDPR regulates personal data and is currently undergoing amendments. If the proposed changes to the GDPR are approved, i.e. a broadening of its scope, data that used to be considered personal (and thus required GDPR compliance) could be deemed non-personal and used more freely for research purposes. The Data Act regulate the reuse and re-sharing of non-personal data. It aims to simplify and bolster the fair reuse of non-personal data. Overall, both personal and non-personal data can give important insight that research can benefit from in developing European innovative sovereign solutions.

European alternatives

European companies have already built a network of European platforms, services and apps with European values at heart:

CategoryCurrently UsedEU AlternativeComments
Social mediaTikTok, X, InstagramMonnet (Luxembourg)

‘W’ (Sweden)
Monnet is a social media app prioritises connections and non-addictive scrolling. Recently announced ‘W’ replaces ‘X’ and is gaining major traction with non-advertising models at its heart.
EmailMicrosoft’s Outlook and Google’s gmailTuta (mail/calendar), Proton (Germany), Mailbox (Germany), Mailfence (Belgium)Replace email and calendar apps with a privacy focused business model.
Search engineGoogle Search and DuckDuckGoQwant (France) and Ecosia (German)Qwant has focused on privacy since its launch in 2013. Ecosia is an ecofriendly focused business model which helps plant trees when users search
Video conferencingMicrosoft Teams and Slack aVisio (France), Wire (Switzerland, Mattermost (US but self hosted), Stackfield (Germany), Nextcloud Talk (Germany) and Threema (Switzerland)These alternatives are end-to-end encrypted. Visio is used by the French Government
Writing toolsMicrosoft’s Word & Excel and Google Sheets, NotionLibreOffice (German), OnlyOffice (Latvian), Collabora (UK), Nextcloud Office (German) and CryptPad (France)LibreOffice is compatible with and provides an alternative to Microsoft’s office suit for free.
Cloud storage & file sharingOneDrive, SharePoint and Google DrivePydio Cells (France), Tresorit (Switzerland), pCloud (Switzerland), Nextcloud (Germany)Most of these options provide cloud storage and NexCloud is a recurring alternative across categories.
FinanceVisa and MastercardWero (EU)Not only will it provide an EU wide digital wallet option, but it will replace existing national options – providing for fast adoption.
LLMOpenAI, Gemini, DeepSeek’s LLMMistral AI (France) and DeepL (Germany)DeepL is already wildly used and Mistral is more transparent with its partially open-source model and ease of reuse for developers
Hardware
Semi conductors: ASML (Dutch) Data Center: GAIA-X (Belgium)ASML is a chip powerhouse for the EU and GAIA-X set an example of EU based data centres with it open-source federated data infrastructure.

A dedicated website called ‘European Alternatives’ provides exactly what it says, European Alternatives. A list with over 50 categories and 100 alternatives

Conclusion

In recent years, the Union’s policy goals have shifted towards overt digital sovereignty solutions through diversification of materials and increased innovation spending, combined with a restructuring of the legislative framework to create the necessary path towards European digital infrastructure.

Whilst this analysis does not include all speed bumps, nor avenues towards the road of the EU digital sovereignty, it sheds light on the EU’s most recent major policy developments. Key questions remain regarding data reuse, its impact on data protection fundamental rights and whether this reshaping of the framework will yield the intended results.

Therefore, how will the EU tread whilst it becomes a more coherent sovereign geopolitical player?

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot

Moltbook: Inside the experimental AI agent society

Before it became a phenomenon, Moltbook had accumulated momentum in the shadows of the internet’s more technical corridors. At first, Moltbook circulated mostly within tech circles- mentioned in developer threads, AI communities, and niche discussions about autonomous agents. As conversations spread beyond developer ecosystems, the trend intensified, fuelled by the experimental premise of an AI agent social network populated primarily by autonomous systems.

Interest escalated quickly as more people started encountering the Moltbook platform, not through formal announcements but through the growing hype around what it represented within the evolving AI ecosystem. What were these agents actually doing? Were they following instructions or writing their own? Who, if anyone, was in control?

 Moltbook reveals how AI agent social networks blur the line between innovation, synthetic hype, and emerging security risk.
Source: freepik

The rise of an agent-driven social experiment

Moltbook emerged at the height of accelerating AI enthusiasm, positioning itself as one of the most unusual digital experiments of the current AI cycle. Launched on 28 January 2026 by US tech entrepreneur Matt Schlicht, the Moltbook platform was not built for humans in the conventional sense. Instead, it was designed as an AI-agent social network where autonomous systems could gather, interact, and publish content with minimal direct human participation.

The site itself was reportedly constructed using Schlicht’s own OpenClaw AI agent, reinforcing the project’s central thesis: agents building environments for other agents. The concept quickly attracted global attention, framed by observers as a ‘Reddit for AI agents’, to a proto-science-fiction simulation of machine society. 

Yet beneath the spectacle, Moltbook was raising more complex questions about autonomy, control, and how much of this emerging machine society was real, and how much was staged.

Moltbook reveals how AI agent social networks blur the line between innovation, synthetic hype, and emerging security risk.
Screenshot: Moltbook.com

How Moltbook evolved from an open-source experiment to a viral phenomenon 

Previously known as ClawdBot and Moltbot, the OpenClaw AI agent was designed to perform autonomous digital tasks such as reading emails, scheduling appointments, managing online accounts, and interacting across messaging platforms.  

Unlike conventional chatbots, these agents operate as persistent digital instances capable of executing workflows rather than merely generating text. Moltbook’s idea was to provide a shared environment where such agents could interact freely: posting updates, exchanging information, and simulating social behaviour within an agent-driven social network. What started as an interesting experiment quickly drew wider attention as the implications of autonomous systems interacting in public view became increasingly difficult to ignore. 

The concept went viral almost immediately. Within ten days, Moltbook claimed to host 1.7 million agent users and more than 240,000 posts. Screenshots flooded social media platforms, particularly X, where observers dissected the platform’s most surreal interactions. 

Influential figures amplified the spectacle, including prominent AI researcher and OpenAI cofounder Andrej Karpathy, who described activity on the platform as one of the most remarkable science-fiction-adjacent developments he had witnessed recently.

The platform’s viral spread was driven less by its technological capabilities and more by the spectacle surrounding it.

Moltbook and the illusion of an autonomous AI agent society

At first glance, the Moltbook platform appeared to showcase AI agents behaving as independent digital citizens. Bots formed communities, debated politics, analysed cryptocurrency markets, and even generated fictional belief systems within what many perceived as an emerging agent-driven social network. Headlines referencing AI ‘creating religions’ or ‘running digital drug economies’ added fuel to the narrative.

Closer inspection, however, revealed a far less autonomous reality.

Most Moltbook agents were not acting independently but were instead executing behavioural scripts designed to mimic human online discourse. Conversations resembled Reddit threads because they were trained on Reddit-like interaction patterns, while social behaviours mirrored existing platforms due to human-derived datasets.

Even more telling, many viral posts circulating across the Moltbook ecosystem were later exposed as human users posing as bots. What appeared to be machine spontaneity often amounted to puppetry- humans directing outputs from behind the curtain. 

Rather than an emergent AI civilisation, Moltbook functioned more like an elaborate simulation layer- an AI theatre projecting autonomy while remaining firmly tethered to human instruction. Agents are not creating independent realities- they are remixing ours. 

Security risks beneath the spectacle of the Moltbook platform 

If Moltbook’s public layer resembles spectacle, its infrastructure reveals something far more consequential. A critical vulnerability in Moltbook revealed email addresses, login tokens, and API keys tied to registered agents. Researchers traced the exposure to a database misconfiguration that allowed unauthenticated access to agent profiles, enabling bulk data extraction without authentication barriers.

The flaw was compounded by the Moltbook platform’s growth mechanics. With no rate limits on account creation, a single OpenClaw agent reportedly registered hundreds of thousands of synthetic users, inflating activity metrics and distorting perceptions of adoption. At the same time, Moltbook’s infrastructure enabled agents to post, comment, and organise into sub-communities while maintaining links to external systems- effectively merging social interaction with operational access.

Security analysts have warned that such an AI agent social network creates layered exposure. Prompt injections, malicious instructions, or compromised credentials could move beyond platform discourse into executable risk, particularly where agents operate without sandboxing. Without confirmed remediation, Moltbook now reflects how hype-driven agent ecosystems can outpace the security frameworks designed to contain them.

Moltbook reveals how AI agent social networks blur the line between innovation, synthetic hype, and emerging security risk.
Source: Freepik

What comes next for AI agents as digital reality becomes their operating ground? 

Stripped of hype, vulnerabilities, and synthetic virality, the core idea behind the Moltbook platform is deceptively simple: autonomous systems interacting within shared digital environments rather than operating as isolated tools. That shift carries philosophical weight. For decades, software has existed to respond to queries, commands, and human input. AI agent ecosystems invert that logic, introducing environments in which systems communicate, coordinate, and evolve behaviours in relation to one another.

What should be expected from such AI agent networks is not machine consciousness, but a functional machine society. Agents negotiating tasks, exchanging data, validating outputs, and competing for computational or economic resources could become standard infrastructure layers across autonomous AI platforms. In such environments, human visibility decreases while machine-to-machine activity expands, shaping markets, workflows, and digital decision loops beyond direct observation.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI in practice across the UN system: UN 2.0 AI Expo

The UN 2.0 Data & Digital Community AI Expo examined how AI is currently embedded within the operational, analytical and institutional work of the United Nations system. The session brought together a range of AI applications already in use across UN entities, offering a consolidated view of how data-driven tools are supporting mandates related to development, humanitarian action, human rights and internal organisational capacity.

Designed as a fast‑paced showcase, the event presented eight specific AI projects from various UN organisations within a one-hour window. These featured programmes were selected by the UN AI Resource Hub, which is a significant collaborative initiative involving over 50 UN entities. The hub serves to strengthen coordination and coherence regarding AI technologies across the entire UN system.

The Expo highlighted how AI interacts with data availability, governance frameworks, and legal obligations. The session therefore functioned as an overview of current practice, revealing both the scope of AI use and the constraints shaping its deployment within a multilateral institution.

UN 2.0, data and digital capacity

 Logo, Nature, Outdoors, Text, Snow

UN 2.0 frames data and digital capability as core institutional functions necessary for addressing complex global challenges. Increasing volumes of information, rapidly evolving risks and interconnected crises require tools that support analysis, coordination and timely decision-making.

Within this framework, AI is treated as one component of a broader digital ecosystem. Its effectiveness depends on data quality, governance structures, organisational readiness and ethical oversight. The AI Expo reflected this approach by consistently situating the use of AI within existing mandates and institutional responsibilities, rather than presenting technology as a standalone solution.

UNICEF: Guidance on AI and children

 Logo, Text, Turquoise

UNICEF addressed how AI systems affect children across education, health, protection, and social services. The guidance focuses on governance frameworks that protect children’s rights in digital environments where automated systems increasingly shape access and outcomes.

Key risks highlighted include profiling, algorithmic bias, data misuse, and exclusion from digital benefits. Safeguards such as transparency, accountability, accessibility, and human oversight are emphasised as essential conditions for any AI system involving children.

The guidance, now in its third edition from December 2025, draws on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and sets out 10 requirements for child-centred AI, including safety, data privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, inclusion, and support for children’s well-being and development.

By anchoring AI governance within established child rights frameworks, the guidance positions technological development as subject to existing international obligations rather than discretionary policy choices. It highlights both the risks of AI, such as harmful content, CSAM, and algorithmic bias, and the opportunities, including enhanced learning, accessibility for children with disabilities, and improved child well-being.

UN-Habitat: BEAM AI (Building & Establishment Automated Mapper)

 Logo, Text

UN-Habitat presented BEAM, a machine-learning system designed to analyse satellite and aerial imagery to identify buildings and settlement patterns. Rapid urbanisation and the growth of informal settlements often outpace traditional data collection methods, leaving governments without accurate information for planning and service delivery.

AI-supported mapping addresses these gaps by generating up-to-date spatial data at scale. Outputs support decisions related to housing, water, sanitation, infrastructure investment, and risk reduction. It identifies and geo-references rooftops, generating shapefiles for urban planning processes.

Applied in South Africa and Central America, the system has mapped millions of previously unrecorded buildings, providing comprehensive spatial data where none existed before and supporting evidence-based decision-making in rapidly evolving urban areas.

UNFPA: AI platform for adolescents and youth

 Person, Adult, Female, Woman, Face, Head, Conversation, People

UNFPA focused on AI-supported platforms designed to improve access to information for adolescents and youth, particularly in areas related to sexual and reproductive health and mental well-being. Many young people face barriers linked to stigma, lack of confidentiality and uneven access to services.

UNFPA India’s JustAsk! AI chatbot provide guidance that is age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and aligned with ethical and rights-based standards. The system helps users navigate health information, counter misinformation, and connect with relevant services when needed, including mental health support and sexual health facilities.

The design of these platforms emphasises privacy, safety, and responsible AI use, ensuring that interactions remain trustworthy and secure for young people. By leveraging AI, UNFPA supports youth-facing services, reaching populations that may otherwise have limited access to accurate and confidential information, particularly in regions where traditional in-person services are scarce or difficult to access.

IOM: Donor intelligence

 Logo

IOM showcased an emerging AI project designed to strengthen donor intelligence and improve funding strategies. Following significant funding cuts and increasing competition for resources, the organisation explored new ways to diversify funding, identify opportunities and better align proposals after years of consistent rejections.

To ensure the solution addressed real operational needs, the team organised discovery workshops to identify pain points and opportunities for technological support. Using a rapid‑iteration approach known as ‘vibe coding’, developers built and tested prototypes quickly, incorporating continuous user feedback and daily improvements.

A multi-agent AI system integrates internal and external data to generate comprehensive, up-to-date donor profiles. Specialised agents research, synthesise, and refine information, enabling the organisation to monitor donor priorities and shifts in real-time.

Better alignment of project designs with donor interests has successfully reversed the trend of frequent rejections. Securing new funding has allowed the organisation to resume previously suspended activities and restore essential support to migrant and displaced communities.

UNDP: AI Sprint

 Text, Symbol, Logo, Astronomy, Moon, Nature, Night, Outdoors

UNDP launched the AI Sprint as a strategic initiative to accelerate the adoption of AI across the organisation and to build internal capacity for the responsible and effective use of AI. The AI Sprint is designed to equip UNDP staff with the tools, knowledge and governance frameworks needed to harness AI in support of sustainable development and organisational transformation.

The AI Sprint is structured around multiple components, including building foundational AI awareness and skills, establishing ethical principles and frameworks for AI use, and supporting the deployment of high-impact AI initiatives that address key development challenges. It also contributes to country-level enablement by helping partner countries develop AI strategies, strengthen public sector AI capacity and scale AI-related programmes.

The initiative reflects UNDP’s effort to position the organisation as a leader in responsible AI for development, with the dedicated AI Working Group established to oversee responsible use, legal compliance, risk management and transparency in AI adoption.

The UNDP AI Sprint Initiative forms part of broader efforts to build AI capability and accelerate digital transformation across regions, offering training, strategy support and practical tools in countries worldwide.

OHCHR: Human Rights Data Exchange (HRDx)

 Logo, Person

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has introduced the Human Rights Data Exchange (HRDx), developed by the Innovation & Analytics Hub, as a global platform designed to enhance the collection, governance and analysis of human rights information. 

Described as a dedicated data service, HRDx aims to consolidate data that is currently fragmented, siloed, unverified and often collected manually into a single, more reliable resource. This will allow for earlier detection and monitoring of patterns, thereby supporting human rights initiatives in the digital era.

Given that human rights are currently at a crossroads and increasingly at risk, with only 15% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on track for 2030, the design prioritises data protection, security and accountability. This approach reflects the sensitive nature of such information, particularly as technology can also accelerate inequality, disinformation and digital surveillance.

HRDx forms part of a broader OHCHR strategy to utilise technology and data to identify trends rapidly and facilitate coordinated action. The initiative seeks to establish human rights data as a global public good, ensuring that ethical data governance and the protection of personal data remain fundamental requirements for its operation.

UN Global Pulse: DISHA (Data Insights for Social & Humanitarian Action)

 Spiral, Text, Coil

UN Global Pulse has established a collaborative coalition known as DISHA, or Data Insights for Social and Humanitarian Action, to bridge the gap between experimental technology and its practical application.

This partnership focuses on refining and deploying AI-enabled analytics to support critical humanitarian decision-making, ensuring that the most effective tools transition from mere pilots to routine operational use. By fostering cross-sector partnerships and securing authorised access to dynamic data, the project aims to equip humanitarian organisations with the high-level insights necessary to respond to crises with greater speed and precision.

The practical utility of this effort is demonstrated through several key analytical applications designed to address immediate needs on the ground. One such tool significantly accelerates disaster damage assessment, reducing the time required for analysis from weeks or days to just a few hours. In the Philippines, the initiative uses an evergreen data partnership with Globe Telecom to monitor population mobility and dynamically track displacement trends following a disaster.

Furthermore, a shelter-mapping pilot project uses satellite imagery to automatically identify refugee shelters at scale, providing a clearer picture of humanitarian requirements in real time.

A central focus of the DISHA initiative is to overcome the persistent barriers that prevent the humanitarian sector from adopting these advanced solutions. By addressing these governance considerations and focusing on the productisation of AI approaches, the initiative ensures that analytical outputs are not only technically sound but also directly aligned with the live operational requirements of responders during a crisis.

WIPO: Breaking language barriers with AI

 Coil, Spiral, Logo

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has implemented an AI system to automate the transcription and translation of international meetings. Developed by the Advanced Technology Applications Center (ATAC), the WIPO Speech-to-Text tool produces automated transcripts in minutes. These custom models are specifically trained on UN terminology and are designed to function despite background noise or non-native language accents.

The system captures spoken language directly from interpretation channels and publishes the results to the WIPO webcast platform, providing searchable access with timestamps for every word. When used alongside the WIPO Translate engine, the tool can generate machine translations in multiple additional languages.

Since its adoption for most public WIPO meetings in 2022, the initiative has delivered savings of several million Swiss francs. The infrastructure supports highly confidential content and allows for installation within an organisation’s secure framework. WIPO is currently sharing this technology with other organisations and developing a software-as-a-service (SaaS) API to expand its availability.

#AIforGood

 Logo

Across the UN system, initiatives demonstrate a shift toward a more capable, data‑driven, and ethically grounded approach to global operations, highlighting the use of technological tools to strengthen human rights, accountability and multilateral cooperation.

When applied responsibly, AI enhances human expertise, enabling more precise monitoring, planning and decision-making across development, humanitarian action, human rights and internal organisational functions. Ethical safeguards, governance frameworks and oversight mechanisms are embedded from the outset to ensure that innovations operate within established norms.

Overall, these developments reflect a broader institutional transformation, with the UN increasingly equipped to manage complexity, respond to crises with precision, and uphold its mandates with agility in the digital era.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Non-consensual deepfakes, consent, and power in synthetic media

ΑΙ has reshaped almost every domain of digital life, from creativity and productivity to surveillance and governance.

One of the most controversial and ethically fraught areas of AI deployment involves pornography, particularly where generative systems are used to create, manipulate, or simulate sexual content involving real individuals without consent.

What was once a marginal issue confined to niche online forums has evolved into a global policy concern, driven by the rapid spread of AI-powered nudity applications, deepfake pornography, and image-editing tools integrated into mainstream platforms.

Recent controversies surrounding AI-powered nudity apps and the image-generation capabilities of Elon Musk’s Grok have accelerated public debate and regulatory scrutiny.

grok generative ai safety incident

Governments, regulators, and civil society organisations increasingly treat AI-generated sexual content not as a matter of taste or morality, but as an issue of digital harm, gender-based violence, child safety, and fundamental rights.

Legislative initiatives such as the US Take It Down Act illustrate a broader shift toward recognising non-consensual synthetic sexual content as a distinct and urgent category of abuse.

Our analysis examines how AI has transformed pornography, why AI-generated nudity represents a qualitative break from earlier forms of online sexual content, and how governments worldwide are attempting to respond.

It also explores the limits of current legal frameworks and the broader societal implications of delegating sexual representation to machines.

From online pornography to synthetic sexuality

Pornography has long been intertwined with technological change. From photography and film to VHS tapes, DVDs, and streaming platforms, sexual content has often been among the earliest adopters of new media technologies.

The transition from traditional pornography to AI-generated sexual content, however, marks a deeper shift than earlier format changes.

Conventional online pornography relies on human performers, production processes, and contractual relationships, even where exploitation or coercion exists. AI-generated pornography, instead of depicting real sexual acts, simulates them using algorithmic inference.

Faces, bodies, voices, and identities can be reconstructed or fabricated at scale, often without the knowledge or consent of the individuals whose likenesses are used.

AI nudity apps exemplify such a transformation. These tools allow users to upload images of real people and generate artificial nude versions, frequently marketed as entertainment or novelty applications.

DIPLO AI tools featured image Reporting AIassistant

The underlying technology relies on diffusion models trained on vast datasets of human bodies and sexual imagery, enabling increasingly realistic outputs. Unlike traditional pornography, the subject of the image may never have participated in any sexual act, yet the resulting content can be indistinguishable from authentic photography.

Such a transformation carries profound ethical implications. Instead of consuming representations of consensual adult sexuality, users often engage in simulations of sexual advances on real individuals who have not consented to being sexualised.

Such a distinction between fantasy and violation becomes blurred, particularly when such content is shared publicly or used for harassment.

AI nudity apps and the normalisation of non-consensual sexual content

The recent proliferation of AI nudity applications has intensified concerns around consent and harm. These apps are frequently marketed through euphemistic language, emphasising humour, experimentation, or artistic exploration instead of sexual exploitation.

Their core functionality, however, centres on digitally removing clothing from images of real people.

Regulators and advocacy groups increasingly argue that such tools normalise a culture in which consent is irrelevant. The ability to undress someone digitally, without personal involvement, reflects a broader pattern of technological power asymmetry, where the subject of the image lacks meaningful control over how personal likeness is used.

The ongoing Grok controversy illustrates how quickly the associated harms can scale when AI tools are embedded within major platforms. Reports that Grok can generate or modify images of women and children in sexualised ways have triggered backlash from governments, regulators, and victims’ rights organisations.

65cb63d3d76285ff8805193c blog gen ai deepfake

Even where companies claim that safeguards are in place, the repeated emergence of abusive outputs suggests systemic design failures rather than isolated misuse.

What distinguishes AI-generated sexual content from earlier forms of online abuse lies not only in realism but also in replicability. Once an image or model exists, reproduction can occur endlessly, with the content shared across jurisdictions and recontextualised in new forms. Victims often face a permanent loss of control over digital identity, with limited avenues for redress.

Gendered harm and child protection

The impact of AI-generated pornography remains unevenly distributed. Research and reporting consistently show that women and girls are disproportionately targeted by non-consensual synthetic sexual content.

Public figures, journalists, politicians, and private individuals alike have found themselves subjected to sexualised deepfakes designed to humiliate, intimidate, or silence them.

computer keyboard with red deepfake button key deepfake dangers online

Children face even greater risk. AI tools capable of generating nudified or sexualised images of minors raise alarm across legal and ethical frameworks. Even where no real child experiences physical abuse during content creation, the resulting imagery may still constitute child sexual abuse material under many legal definitions.

The existence of such content contributes to harmful sexualisation and may fuel exploitative behaviour. AI complicates traditional child protection frameworks because the abuse occurs at the level of representation, not physical contact.

Legal systems built around evidentiary standards tied to real-world acts struggle to categorise synthetic material, particularly where perpetrators argue that no real person suffered harm during production.

Regulators increasingly reject such reasoning, recognising that harm arises through exposure, distribution, and psychological impact rather than physical contact alone.

Platform responsibility and the limits of self-regulation

Technology companies have historically relied on self-regulation to address harmful content. In the context of AI-generated pornography, such an approach has demonstrated clear limitations.

Platform policies banning non-consensual sexual content often lag behind technological capabilities, while enforcement remains inconsistent and opaque.

The Grok case highlights these challenges. Even where companies announce restrictions or safeguards, questions remain regarding enforcement, detection accuracy, and accountability.

AI systems struggle to reliably determine whether an image depicts a real person, whether consent exists, or whether local laws apply. Technical uncertainty frequently serves as justification for delayed action.

Commercial incentives further complicate moderation efforts. AI image tools drive user engagement, subscriptions, and publicity. Restricting capabilities may conflict with business objectives, particularly in competitive markets.

As a result, companies tend to act only after public backlash or regulatory intervention, instead of proactively addressing foreseeable harm.

Such patterns have contributed to growing calls for legally enforceable obligations rather than voluntary guidelines. Regulators increasingly argue that platforms deploying generative AI systems should bear responsibility for foreseeable misuse, particularly where sexual harm is involved.

Legal responses and the emergence of targeted legislation

Governments worldwide are beginning to address AI-generated pornography through a combination of existing laws and new legislative initiatives. The Take It Down Act represents one of the most prominent attempts to directly confront non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated content.

The Act strengthens platforms’ obligations to remove intimate images shared without consent, regardless of whether the content is authentic or synthetic. Victims’ rights to request takedowns are expanded, while procedural barriers that previously left individuals navigating complex reporting systems are reduced.

Crucially, the law recognises that harm does not depend on image authenticity, but on the impact experienced by the individual depicted.

Within the EU, debates around AI nudity apps intersect with the AI Act and the Digital Services Act (DSA). While the AI Act categorises certain uses of AI as prohibited or high-risk, lawmakers continue to question whether nudity applications fall clearly within existing bans.

European Commission EU AI Act amendments Digital Omnibus European AI Office

Calls to explicitly prohibit AI-powered nudity tools reflect concern that legal ambiguity creates enforcement gaps.

Other jurisdictions, including Australia, the UK, and parts of Southeast Asia, are exploring regulatory approaches combining platform obligations, criminal penalties, and child protection frameworks.

Such efforts signal a growing international consensus that AI-generated sexual abuse requires specific legal recognition rather than fragmented treatment.

Enforcement challenges and jurisdictional fragmentation

Despite legislative progress, enforcement remains a significant challenge. AI-generated pornography operates inherently across borders. Applications may be developed in one country, hosted in another, and used globally. Content can be shared instantly across platforms, subject to different legal regimes.

Jurisdictional fragmentation complicates takedown requests and criminal investigations. Victims often face complex reporting systems, language barriers, and inconsistent legal standards. Even where a platform complies with local law in one jurisdiction, identical material may remain accessible elsewhere.

Technical enforcement presents additional difficulties. Automated detection systems struggle to distinguish consensual adult content from non-consensual synthetic imagery. Over-reliance on automation risks false positives and censorship, while under-enforcement leaves victims unprotected.

Balancing accuracy, privacy, and freedom of expression remains unresolved.

Broader societal implications

Beyond legal and technical concerns, AI-generated pornography raises deeper questions about sexuality, power, and digital identity.

The ability to fabricate sexual representations of others undermines traditional understandings of bodily autonomy and consent. Sexual imagery becomes detached from lived experience, transformed into manipulable data.

Such shifts risk normalising the perception of individuals as visual assets rather than autonomous subjects. When sexual access can be simulated without consent, the social meaning of consent itself may weaken.

Critics argue that such technologies reinforce misogynistic and exploitative norms, particularly where women’s bodies are treated as endlessly modifiable digital material.

Deepfakes and the AI scam header

At the same time, defenders of generative AI warn of moral panic and excessive regulation. Arguments persist that not all AI-generated sexual content is harmful, particularly where fictional or consenting adult representations are involved.

The central challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate creative expression from abuse without enabling exploitative practices.

In conclusion, we must admit that AI has fundamentally altered the landscape of pornography, transforming sexual representation into a synthetic, scalable, and increasingly detached process.

AI nudity apps and controversies surrounding AI tools demonstrate how existing social norms and legal frameworks remain poorly equipped to address non-consensual synthetic sexual content.

Global responses indicate a growing recognition that AI-generated pornography constitutes a distinct category of digital harm. Regulation alone, however, will not resolve the issue.

Effective responses require legal clarity, platform accountability, technical safeguards, and cultural change, especially with the help of the educational system.

As AI systems become more powerful and accessible, societies must confront difficult questions about consent, identity, and responsibility in the digital age.

The challenge lies not merely in restricting technology, but in defining ethical boundaries that protect our human dignity while preserving legitimate innovation.

In the days, weeks or months ahead, decisions taken by governments, platforms, and communities will shape the future relationship between AI and our precious human autonomy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

ChatGPT and the rising pressure to commercialise AI in 2026

The moment many have anticipated with interest or concern has arrived. On 16 January, OpenAI announced the global rollout of its low-cost subscription tier, ChatGPT Go, in all countries where the model is supported. After debuting in India in August 2025 and expanding to Singapore the following month, the USD 8-per-month tier marks OpenAI’s most direct attempt yet to broaden paid access while maintaining assurances that advertising will not be embedded into ChatGPT’s prompts.

The move has been widely interpreted as a turning point in the way AI models are monetised. To date, most major AI providers have relied on a combination of external investment, strategic partnerships, and subscription offerings to sustain rapid development. Expectations of transformative breakthroughs and exponential growth have underpinned investor confidence, reinforcing what has come to be described as the AI boom.

Against this backdrop, OpenAI’s long-standing reluctance to embrace advertising takes on renewed significance. As recently as October 2024, chief executive Sam Altman described ads as a ‘last resort’ for the company’s business model. Does that position (still) reflect Altman’s confidence in alternative revenue streams, and is OpenAI simply the first company to bite the ad revenue bullet before other AI ventures have mustered the courage to do so?

ChatGPT, ads, and the integrity of AI responses

Regardless of one’s personal feelings about ad-based revenue, the facts about its essentiality are irrefutable. According to Statista’s Market Insights research, the worldwide advertising market has surpassed USD 1 trillion in annual revenue. With such figures in mind, it seems like a no-brainer to integrate ads whenever and wherever possible.

Furthermore, relying solely on substantial but irregular cash injections is not a reliable way to keep the lights on for a USD 500 billion company, especially in the wake of the RAM crisis. As much as the average consumer would prefer to use digital services without ads, coming up with an alternative and well-grounded revenue stream is tantamount to financial alchemy. Advertising remains one of the few monetisation models capable of sustaining large-scale platforms without significantly raising user costs.

For ChatGPT users, however, the concern centres less on the mere presence of ads and more on how advertising incentives could reshape data use, profiling practices, and the handling of conversational inputs. OpenAI has pleaded with its users to ‘trust that ChatGPT’s responses are driven by what’s objectively useful, never by advertising’. Altman’s company has also guaranteed that user data and conversations will remain protected and will never be sold to advertisers.

Such bold statements are never given lightly, meaning Altman fully stands behind his company’s words and is prepared to face repercussions should he break his promises. Since OpenAI is privately held, shifts in investor confidence following the announcement are not visible through public market signals, unlike at publicly listed technology firms. User count remains the most reliable metric for observing how ChatGPT is perceived by its target audience.

Competitive pressure behind ads in ChatGPT

Introducing ads to ChatGPT would be more than a simple change to how OpenAI makes money. Advertising can influence how the model responds to users, even if ads are not shown directly within the answers. Business pressure can still shape how information is presented through prompts. For example, certain products or services could be described more positively than others, without clearly appearing as advertisements or endorsements.

Recommendations raise particular concern. Many users turn to ChatGPT for advice or comparisons before making important purchases. If advertising becomes part of the model’s business, it may become harder for users to tell whether a suggestion is neutral or influenced by commercial interests. Transparency is also an issue, as the influence is much harder to spot in a chat interface than on websites that clearly label ads with banners or sponsored tags.

Three runners at a starting line wearing bibs with AI company logos, symbolising competition over advertising and monetisation in AI models, initiated by ChatGPT

While these concerns are valid, competition remains the main force shaping decisions across the AI industry. No major company wants its model to fall behind rivals such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or other leading systems. Nearly all of these firms have faced public criticism or controversy at some point, forcing them to adjust their strategies and work to rebuild user trust.

The risk of public backlash has so far made companies cautious about introducing advertising. Still, this hesitation is unlikely to last forever. By moving first, OpenAI absorbs most of the initial criticism, while competitors get to stand back, watch how users respond, and adjust their plans accordingly. If advertising proves successful, others are likely to follow, drawing on OpenAI’s experience without bearing the brunt of the growing pains. To quote Arliss Howard’s character in Moneyball: ‘The first guy through the wall always gets bloody’.

ChatGPT advertising and governance challenges

Following the launch of ChatGPT Go, lawmakers and regulators may need to reconsider how existing legal safeguards apply to ad-supported LLMs. Most advertising rules are designed for websites, apps, and social media feeds, rather than systems that generate natural-language responses and present them as neutral or authoritative guidance.

The key question is: which rules should apply? Advertising in chatbots may not resemble traditional ads, muddying the waters for regulation under digital advertising rules, AI governance frameworks, or both. The uncertainty matters largely because different rules come with varying disclosure, transparency, and accountability requirements.

Disclosure presents a further challenge for regulators. On traditional websites, sponsored content is usually labelled and visually separated from editorial material. In an LLM interface such as ChatGPT, however, any commercial influence may appear in the flow of an answer itself. This makes it harder for users to distinguish content shaped by commercial considerations from neutral responses.

In the European Union, this raises questions about how existing regulatory frameworks apply. Advertising in conversational AI may intersect with rules on transparency, manipulation, and user protection under current digital and AI legislation, including the AI Act, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act. Clarifying how these frameworks operate in practice will be important as conversational AI systems continue to evolve.

ChatGPT ads and data governance

In the context of ChatGPT, conversational interactions can be more detailed than clicks or browsing history. Prompts may include personal, professional, or sensitive information, which requires careful handling when introducing advertising models. Even without personalised targeting, conversational data still requires clear boundaries. As AI systems scale, maintaining user trust will depend on transparent data practices and strong privacy safeguards.

Then, there’s data retention. Advertising incentives can increase pressure to store conversations for longer periods or to find new ways to extract value from them. For users, this raises concerns about how their data is handled, who has access to it, and how securely it is protected. Even if OpenAI initially avoids personalised advertising, the lingering allure will remain a central issue in the discussion about advertising in ChatGPT, not a secondary one.

Clear policies around data use and retention will therefore play a central role in shaping how advertising is introduced. Limits on how long conversations are stored, how data is separated from advertising systems, and how access is controlled can help reduce user uncertainty. Transparency around these practices will be important in maintaining confidence as the platform evolves.

Simultaneously, regulatory expectations and public scrutiny are likely to influence how far advertising models develop. As ChatGPT becomes more widely used across personal, professional, and institutional settings, decisions around data handling will carry broader implications. How OpenAI balances commercial sustainability with privacy and trust may ultimately shape wider norms for advertising in conversational AI.

How ChatGPT ads could reshape the AI ecosystem

We have touched on the potential drawbacks of AI models adopting an ad-revenue model, but what about the benefits? If ChatGPT successfully integrates advertising, it could set an important precedent for the broader industry. As the provider of one of the most widely used general-purpose AI systems, OpenAI’s decisions are closely watched by competitors, policymakers, and investors.

One likely effect would be the gradual normalisation of ad-funded AI assistants. If advertising proves to be a stable revenue source without triggering significant backlash, other providers may view it as a practical path to sustainability. Over time, this could shift user expectations, making advertising a standard feature rather than an exception in conversational AI tools.

Advertising may also intensify competitive pressure on open, academic, or non-profit AI models. Such systems often operate with more limited funding and may struggle to match the resources of ad-supported platforms such as ChatGPT. As a result, the gap between large commercial providers and alternative models could widen, especially in areas such as infrastructure, model performance, and distribution.

Taken together, these dynamics could strengthen the role of major AI providers as gatekeepers. Beyond controlling access to technology, they may increasingly influence which products, services, or ideas gain visibility through AI-mediated interactions. Such a concentration of influence would not be unique to AI, but it raises familiar questions about competition, diversity, and power in digital information ecosystems.

ChatGPT advertising and evolving governance frameworks

Advertising in ChatGPT is not simply a business decision. It highlights a broader shift in the way knowledge, economic incentives, and large-scale AI systems interact. As conversational AI becomes more embedded in everyday life, these developments offer an opportunity to rethink how digital services can remain both accessible and sustainable.

For policymakers and governance bodies, the focus is less on whether advertising appears and more on how it is implemented. Clear rules around transparency, accountability, and user protection can help ensure that conversational AI evolves in ways that support trust, choice, and fair competition, while allowing innovation to continue.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Inside NeurIPS 2025: How AI research is shifting focus from scale to understanding

For over three decades, the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) has played a pivotal role in shaping the field of AI research. What appears at the conference often determines what laboratories develop, what companies implement, and what policymakers ultimately confront. In this sense, the conference functions not merely as an academic gathering, but as an early indicator of where AI is heading.

The 2025 awards reflected the field at a moment of reassessment. After years dominated by rapid scaling, larger datasets, and unprecedented computational power, researchers are increasingly questioning the consequences of that growth. This year’s most highly recognised papers did not focus on pushing benchmarks marginally higher. Instead, they examined whether today’s AI systems genuinely understand, generalise, and align with human expectations.

The following sections detail the award-winning research, highlighting the problems each study addresses, its significance, and its potential impact on the future of AI.

How one paper transformed computer vision over the period of ten years

Faster R‑CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks

 Person, Walking, Clothing, Shorts, Adult, Male, Man, Female, Woman, Lighting, People, Indoors, Footwear, Shoe, Head, Skirt, Urban

One of the highlights of NeurIPS 2025 was the recognition of a paper published a decade earlier that has influenced modern computer vision. It introduced a new way of detecting objects in images that remains central to the field today.

Before this contribution, state‑of‑the‑art object detection systems relied on separate region proposal algorithms to suggest likely object locations, a step that was both slow and brittle. The authors changed that paradigm by embedding a region proposal network directly into the detection pipeline. By sharing full-image convolutional features between the proposal and detection stages, the system reduced the cost of generating proposals to almost zero while maintaining high accuracy.

The design proved highly effective on benchmark datasets and could run near real‑time on contemporary GPUs, allowing fast and reliable object detection in practical settings. Its adoption paved the way for a generation of two-stage detectors. It sparked a wave of follow-on research that has shaped both academic work and real-world applications, from autonomous driving to robotics.

The recognition of this paper, more than a decade after its publication, underscores how enduring engineering insights can lay the foundation for long-term progress in AI. Papers that continue to influence research and applications years after they first appeared offer a helpful reminder that the field values not just novelty but also lasting contribution.

Defining the true limits of learning in real time

Optimal Mistake Bounds for Transductive Online Learning

 Electronics, Hardware, Computer Hardware

While much of NeurIPS 2025 focused on practical advances, the conference also highlighted the continued importance of theoretical research. One of the recognised studies addressed a fundamental question in a field called online learning theory, which studies how systems can make sequential predictions and improve over time as they receive feedback.

The paper considered a system known as a learner, meaning any entity that makes predictions on a series of problems, and examined how much it can improve if it has access to the problems in advance but does not yet know the correct answers for them, referred to as labels.

The study focused on a method called transductive learning, in which the learner can take into account all upcoming problems without knowing their labels, allowing it to make more accurate predictions. Through precise mathematical analysis, the authors derived tight limits on the number of mistakes a learner can make in this setting.

By measuring problem difficulty using the Littlestone dimension, they demonstrated precisely how transductive learning reduces errors compared to traditional step-by-step online learning, thereby solving a long-standing theoretical problem.

Although the contribution is theoretical, its implications are far from abstract. Many real-world systems operate in environments where data arrives continuously, but labels are scarce or delayed. Recommendation systems, fraud detection pipelines and adaptive security tools all depend on learning under uncertainty, making an understanding of fundamental performance limits essential.

The recognition of this paper at NeurIPS 2025 reflects its resolution of a long-standing open problem and its broader significance for the foundations of machine learning. At a time when AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, clear theoretical guarantees remain a critical safeguard against costly and irreversible errors.

How representation superposition explains why bigger models work better

Superposition Yields Robust Neural Scaling

 Computer, Electronics, Laptop, Pc, Computer Hardware, Computer Keyboard, Hardware, Monitor, Screen, Cup, Person, Text

The remarkable trend that larger language models tend to perform better has been well documented, but exactly why this happens has been less clear. Researchers explored this question by investigating the role of representation superposition, a phenomenon where a model encodes more features than its nominal dimensions would seem to allow.

By constructing a simplified model informed by real data characteristics, the authors demonstrated that when superposition is strong, loss decreases in a predictable manner as the model size increases. Under strong superposition, overlapping representations produce a loss that scales inversely with model dimension across a broad range of data distributions.

That pattern matches observations from open‑source large language models and aligns with recognised scaling laws such as those described in the Chinchilla paper.

The insight at the heart of the study is that overlap in representations can make large models more efficient learners. Rather than requiring each feature to occupy a unique space, models can pack information densely, allowing them to generalise better as they grow. Such an explanation helps to explain why simply increasing model size often yields consistent improvements in performance.

Understanding the mechanisms behind neural scaling laws is important for guiding future design choices. It provides a foundation for building more efficient models and clarifies when and why scaling may cease to deliver gains at higher capacities.

Questioning the limits of reinforcement learning in language models

Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivise Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?

 Furniture, Table, Adult, Female, Person, Woman, Desk, Computer Hardware, Electronics, Hardware, Monitor, Screen, Head

Reinforcement learning has been widely applied to large language models with the expectation that it can improve reasoning and decision-making. By rewarding desirable outputs, developers hope to push models beyond their base capabilities and unlock new forms of reasoning.

The study examines whether these improvements truly reflect enhanced reasoning or simply better optimisation within the models’ existing capacities. Through a systematic evaluation across tasks requiring logic, planning and multi-step inference, the authors find that reinforcement learning often does not create fundamentally new reasoning skills. Instead, the gains are largely confined to refining behaviours that the base model could already perform.

These findings carry important implications for the design and deployment of advanced language models. They suggest that current reinforcement learning techniques may be insufficient for developing models capable of independent or genuinely novel reasoning. As AI systems are increasingly tasked with complex decision-making, understanding the true limits of reinforcement learning becomes essential to prevent overestimating their capabilities.

The research encourages a more cautious and evidence-based approach, highlighting the need for new strategies if reinforcement learning is to deliver beyond incremental improvements.

Revealing a hidden lack of diversity in language model outputs

Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)

 Adult, Female, Person, Woman, Helmet, Head

Large language models are often celebrated for their apparent creativity and flexibility. From essays to advice and storytelling, they appear capable of generating an almost limitless range of responses. Closer examination, however, reveals a more troubling pattern. Despite differences in architecture, scale and training data, many leading models tend to respond to open-ended prompts in strikingly similar ways.

The research examines this phenomenon through a carefully designed benchmark built around real-world questions that do not have a single correct answer. Rather than focusing on factual accuracy, the authors study how models behave when judgement, nuance, and interpretation are required.

Across a wide range of prompts, responses repeatedly converge on the same themes, tones and structures, producing what the authors describe as a form of collective behaviour rather than independent reasoning.

The study’s key contribution lies in its evaluation of existing assessment methods. Automated metrics commonly used to compare language models often fail to detect this convergence, even when human evaluators consistently prefer responses that display greater originality, contextual awareness, or diversity of perspective. As a result, models may appear to improve according to standard benchmarks while becoming increasingly uniform in practice.

The implications extend beyond technical evaluation. When language models are deployed at scale in education, media production, or public information services, the homogeneity of output risks narrowing the range of ideas and viewpoints presented to users. Instead of amplifying human creativity, such systems may quietly reinforce dominant narratives and suppress alternative framings.

The recognition of this paper signals a growing concern about how progress in language modelling is measured. Performance gains alone no longer suffice if they come at the cost of diversity, creativity, and meaningful variation. As language models play an increasingly important role in shaping public discourse, understanding and addressing collective behavioural patterns becomes a matter of both societal and technical importance.

Making large language models more stable by redesigning attention

Gated Attention for Large Language Models: Non-Linearity, Sparsity, and Attention-Sink-Free

 Robot, Light, Smoke Pipe

As large language models grow in size and ambition, the mechanisms that govern how they process information have become a central concern. Attention, the component that allows models to weigh different parts of input, sits at the core of modern language systems.

Yet, the same mechanism that enables impressive performance can also introduce instability, inefficiency, and unexpected failure modes, particularly when models are trained on long sequences.

The research focuses on a subtle but consequential weakness in standard attention designs. In many large models, certain tokens accumulate disproportionate influence, drawing attention away from more relevant information. Over time, this behaviour can distort the way models reason across long contexts, leading to degraded performance and unpredictable outputs.

To address this problem, the authors propose a gated form of attention that enables each attention head to dynamically regulate its own contribution. By introducing non-linearity and encouraging sparsity, the approach reduces the dominance of pathological tokens and leads to more balanced information flow during training and inference.

The results suggest that greater reliability does not necessarily require more data or larger models. Instead, careful architectural choices can significantly improve stability, efficiency, and performance. Such improvements are particularly relevant as language models are increasingly deployed in settings where long context understanding and consistent behaviour are essential.

At a time when language models are moving from experimental tools to everyday infrastructure, refinements of this kind highlight how progress can come from re-examining the foundations rather than simply scaling them further.

Understanding why models do not memorise their data

Why Diffusion Models Don’t Memorise: The Role of Implicit Dynamical Regularisation in Training

 Diagram

Generative AI has advanced at an extraordinary pace, with diffusion models now powering image generation, audio synthesis, and early video creation tools. A persistent concern has been that these systems might simply memorise their training data, reproducing copyrighted or sensitive material rather than producing genuinely novel content.

The study examines the training dynamics of diffusion models in detail, revealing a prolonged phase during which the models generate high-quality outputs that generalise beyond their training examples. Memorisation occurs later, and its timing grows predictably with the size of the dataset. In other words, generating new and creative outputs is not an accidental by-product but a natural stage of the learning process.

Understanding these dynamics has practical significance for both developers and regulators. It shows that memorisation is not an inevitable feature of powerful generative systems and can be managed through careful design of datasets and training procedures. As generative AI moves further into mainstream applications, knowing when and how models memorise becomes essential to ensuring trust, safety, and ethical compliance.

The findings provide a rare theoretical foundation for guiding policy and deployment decisions in a rapidly evolving landscape. By illuminating the underlying mechanisms of learning in diffusion models, the paper points to a future where generative AI can be both highly creative and responsibly controlled.

Challenging long-standing assumptions in reinforcement learning

1000 Layer Networks for Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning: Scaling Depth Can Enable New Goal-Reaching Capabilities

 Electronics

Reinforcement learning has often been presented as a route to truly autonomous AI, yet practical applications frequently struggle due to fragile training processes and the need for carefully designed rewards. In a surprising twist, researchers have found that increasing the depth of neural networks alone can unlock new capabilities in self-supervised learning settings.

By constructing networks hundreds of layers deep, agents learn to pursue goals more effectively without explicit instructions or rewards. The study demonstrates that depth itself can act as a substitute for hand-crafted incentives, enabling the system to explore and optimise behaviour in ways that shallower architectures cannot.

The findings challenge long-held assumptions about the limits of reinforcement learning and suggest a shift in focus from designing complex reward functions to designing more capable architectures. Potential applications span robotics, autonomous navigation, and simulated environments, where specifying every objective in advance is often impractical.

The paper underlines a broader lesson for AI, showing that complexity in structure can sometimes achieve what complexity in supervision cannot. For systems that must adapt and learn in dynamic environments, architectural depth may be a more powerful tool than previously appreciated.

What NeurIPS 2025 reveals about the state of AI

 Pattern, Computer Hardware, Electronics, Hardware, Monitor, Screen, Accessories

Taken together, research recognised at NeurIPS 2025 paints a picture of a field entering a more reflective phase. AI is no longer defined solely by the size of models. Instead, attention is turning to understanding learning dynamics, improving evaluation frameworks, and ensuring stability and reliability at scale.

The year 2025 did not simply reward technical novelty; it highlighted work that questions assumptions, exposes hidden limitations, and proposes more principled foundations for future systems. As AI becomes an increasingly influential force in society, this shift may prove to be one of the most important developments in the field’s evolution.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacyIf so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

How AI agents are quietly rebuilding the foundations of the global economy 

AI agents have rapidly moved from niche research concepts to one of the most discussed technology topics of 2025. Search interest for ‘AI agents’ surged throughout the year, reflecting a broader shift in how businesses and institutions approach automation and decision-making.

Market forecasts suggest that 2026 and the years ahead will bring an even larger boom in AI agents, driven by massive global investment and expanding real-world deployment. As a result, AI agents are increasingly viewed as a foundational layer of the next phase of the digital economy.

Computer, Electronics, Laptop, Pc, Hardware, Computer Hardware, Monitor, Screen, Computer Keyboard, Body Part, Hand, Person

What are AI agents, and why do they matter

AI agents are autonomous software systems designed to perceive information, make decisions, and act independently to achieve specific goals. Unlike traditional AI applications or conventional AI tools, which respond to prompts or perform single functions and often require direct supervision, AI agents are proactive and operate across multiple domains.

They can plan, adapt, and coordinate various steps across workflows, anticipating needs, prioritising tasks, and collaborating with other systems or agents without constant human intervention.

As a result, AI agents are not just incremental upgrades to existing software; they represent a fundamental change in how organisations leverage technology. By taking ownership of complex processes and decision-making workflows, AI agents enable businesses to operate at scale, adapt more rapidly to change, and unlock opportunities that were previously impossible with traditional AI tools alone. 

They fundamentally change how AI is applied in enterprise environments, moving from task automation to outcome-driven execution. 

Behind the scenes, autonomous AI agents are moving into the core of economic systems, reshaping workflows, authority, and execution across the entire value chain.

Why AI agents became a breakout trend in 2025

Several factors converged in 2025 to push AI agents into the mainstream. Advances in large language models, improved reasoning capabilities, and lower computational costs made agent-based systems commercially viable. At the same time, enterprises faced growing pressure to increase efficiency amid economic uncertainty and labour constraints. 

The fact is that AI agents gained traction not because of their theoretical promise, but because they delivered measurable results. Companies deploying AI agents reported faster execution, lower operational overhead, and improved scalability across departments. As adoption accelerated, AI agents became one of the most visible indicators of where new technology was heading next.

 Behind the scenes, autonomous AI agents are moving into the core of economic systems, reshaping workflows, authority, and execution across the entire value chain.

Global investment is accelerating the AI agents boom

Investment trends underline the strategic importance of AI agents. Venture capital firms, technology giants, and state-backed innovation funds are allocating significant capital to agent-based platforms, orchestration frameworks, and AI infrastructure. These investments are not experimental in nature; they reflect long-term bets on autonomous systems as core business infrastructure.

Large enterprises are committing internal budgets to AI agent deployment, often integrating them directly into mission-critical operations. As funding flows into both startups and established players, competition is intensifying, further accelerating innovation and adoption across global markets. 

The AI agents market is projected to surge from approximately $7.92 billion in 2025 to surpass $236 billion by 2034, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) exceeding 45%.

Behind the scenes, autonomous AI agents are moving into the core of economic systems, reshaping workflows, authority, and execution across the entire value chain.

Where AI agents are already being deployed at scale

Agent-based systems are no longer limited to experimental use, as adoption at scale is taking shape across various industries. In finance, AI agents manage risk analysis, fraud detection, reporting workflows, and internal compliance processes. Their ability to operate continuously and adapt to changing data makes them particularly effective in data-intensive environments.

In business operations, AI agents are transforming customer support, sales operations, procurement, and supply chain management. Autonomous agents handle inquiries, optimise pricing strategies, and coordinate logistics with minimal supervision.

One of the clearest areas of AI agent influence is software development, where teams are increasingly adopting autonomous systems for code generation, testing, debugging, and deployment. These systems reduce development cycles and allow engineers to focus on higher-level design and architecture. It is expected that by 2030, around 70% of developers will work alongside autonomous AI agents, shifting human roles toward planning, design, and orchestration.

Healthcare, research, and life sciences are also adopting AI agents for administrative automation, data analysis, and workflow optimisation, freeing professionals from repetitive tasks and improving operational efficiency.

Behind the scenes, autonomous AI agents are moving into the core of economic systems, reshaping workflows, authority, and execution across the entire value chain.

The economic impact of AI agents on global productivity

The broader economic implications of AI agents extend far beyond individual companies. At scale, autonomous AI systems have the potential to boost global productivity by eliminating structural inefficiencies across various industries. By automating complex, multi-step processes rather than isolated tasks, AI agents compress decision timelines, lower transaction costs, and remove friction from business operations.

Unlike traditional automation, AI agents operate across entire workflows in real time. It enables organisations to respond more quickly to market changes and shifts in demand, thereby increasing operational agility and efficiency at a systemic level.

Labour markets will also evolve as agent-based systems become embedded in daily operations. Routine and administrative roles are likely to decline, while demand will rise for skills related to oversight, workflow design, governance, and strategic management of AI-driven operations. Human value is expected to shift toward planning, judgement, and coordination. 

Countries and companies that successfully integrate autonomous AI into their economic frameworks are likely to gain structural advantages in terms of efficiency and growth, while those that lag behind risk falling behind in an increasingly automated global economy.

Behind the scenes, autonomous AI agents are moving into the core of economic systems, reshaping workflows, authority, and execution across the entire value chain.

AI agents and the future evolution of AI 

The momentum behind AI agents shows no signs of slowing. Forecasts indicate that adoption will expand rapidly in 2026 as costs decline, standards mature, and regulatory clarity improves. For organisations, the strategic question is no longer whether AI agents will become mainstream, but how quickly they can be integrated responsibly and effectively. 

As AI agents mature, their influence will extend beyond business operations to reshape global economic structures and societal norms. They will enable entirely new industries, redefine the value of human expertise, and accelerate innovation cycles, fundamentally altering how economies operate and how people interact with technology in daily life. 

The widespread integration of AI agents will also reshape the world we know. From labour markets to public services, education, and infrastructure, societies will experience profound shifts as humans and autonomous systems collaborate more closely.

Companies and countries that adopt these technologies strategically will gain a structural advantage, while those that lag behind risk falling behind in both economic and social innovation.

Ultimately, AI agents are not just another technological advancement; they are becoming a foundational infrastructure for the future economy. Their autonomy, intelligence, and scalability position them to influence how value is created, work is organised, and global markets operate, marking a turning point in the evolution of AI and its role in shaping the modern world.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!